I am well aware of the fact that it was passed off to a plan administrator who happens to be an insurance company which in turn makes you even more vulnerable if the ACA is overturned. But, this is what you wanted, and as a "conservative" you might have to swallow some of the bitter pills and be prepared to make the kind of sacrifices conservatism requires which in turn could make your later years of life far less secure or enjoyable.
Maybe now is the right time to organize
- Thread starter Ghost in the Darkness
- Start date
Conservatism requires sticking to what's reasonable. Liberalism requires constant tinkering to get the most control over others.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Doctors still make nore money than working at McDonalds, and if more people were able to get into some form of medical training, they would. No wage increase for doctor's is needed to make people want to earn what doctor's already make. More scholarships for more medical schools would help the shortage you claim is a valid reason to deny care to the poor.
What is 'silly' (ignorant) is thinking that employer provided care, where offered is efficient while taking 20% of the money as profit, and more as operating costs for insurance companies. What would be efficient is using the 20+% to care for more people- not to make insurance execs wealthy.
I'm not complaining about the wealthy- that is your interpretation. I just believe that they should pay the same % of their total income in taxes- not just income tax- as the Janitor working at the local school. It is your assumptions of what I am thinking that may have you continuing to make ignorant claims. From the start of this thread, you have shown ignorance of what the ACA covers, what it provides, what it costs, and now you show ignorance with claims of doctor wages being too low to attract people to the medical profession, You show ignorance of technical advances that will require fewer doctors to treat more customers, and now show ignorance by claiming to know what liberals think. In fact. lumping liberals together as if they all think the same thing shows ignorance.
Dude, your ignorance is showing. You should quit posting.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Doctors intentionally keep the cost of becoming an MD high in order to protect their income. The AMA doesn’t exist to encourage more students to become physicians.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Your grasp of the entire situation shows not only your ignorance, but your gullibility.
These are the side effects for just medicare if the ACA is cancelled- your taxes WILL need to go up----
If the A.C.A. is struck down, Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay more for preventive care, like a wellness visit or diabetes check, which are now free. They would also have to pay more toward their prescription drugs. About five million people faced the so-called Medicare doughnut hole, or coverage gap, in 2016, which the A.C.A. sought to eliminate. If the law were overturned, that coverage gap would widen again.
The law also made other changes, like cutting the amount the federal government paid hospitals and other providers as well as private Medicare Advantage plans. Undoing the cuts could increase the program’s overall costs by hundreds of billions of dollars, according to Ms. Neuman. Premiums under the program could go up as a result.
The A.C.A. was also responsible for promoting experiments into new ways of paying hospitals and doctors, creating vehicles like accountable care organizations to help hospitals, doctors and others to better coordinate patients’ care.
If the groups save Medicare money on the care they provide, they get to keep some of those savings. About 11 million people are now enrolled in these Medicare groups, and it is unclear what would happen to these experiments if the law were deemed unconstitutional. Some of Mr. Trump’s initiatives, like the efforts to lower drug prices, would also be hindered without the federal authority established under the A.C.A.
Repealing the law would also eliminate a 0.9 percent increase in the payroll tax for high earners, which would mean less money coming into the Medicare trust fund. The fund is already heading toward insolvency — partly because other taxes created by the law that had provided revenue for the fund have already been repealed — by 2024.
www.nytimes.com
60 MILLION
Medicare beneficiaries would face changes to medical care and possibly higher premiums
About 60 million people are covered under Medicare, the federal health insurance program for people 65 and older and people of all ages with disabilities. Even though the main aim of the A.C.A. was to overhaul the health insurance markets, the law “touches virtually every part of Medicare,” said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president for the Kaiser Family Foundation, which did an analysis of the law’s repeal. Overturning the law would be “very disruptive,” she said.If the A.C.A. is struck down, Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay more for preventive care, like a wellness visit or diabetes check, which are now free. They would also have to pay more toward their prescription drugs. About five million people faced the so-called Medicare doughnut hole, or coverage gap, in 2016, which the A.C.A. sought to eliminate. If the law were overturned, that coverage gap would widen again.
The law also made other changes, like cutting the amount the federal government paid hospitals and other providers as well as private Medicare Advantage plans. Undoing the cuts could increase the program’s overall costs by hundreds of billions of dollars, according to Ms. Neuman. Premiums under the program could go up as a result.
The A.C.A. was also responsible for promoting experiments into new ways of paying hospitals and doctors, creating vehicles like accountable care organizations to help hospitals, doctors and others to better coordinate patients’ care.
If the groups save Medicare money on the care they provide, they get to keep some of those savings. About 11 million people are now enrolled in these Medicare groups, and it is unclear what would happen to these experiments if the law were deemed unconstitutional. Some of Mr. Trump’s initiatives, like the efforts to lower drug prices, would also be hindered without the federal authority established under the A.C.A.
Repealing the law would also eliminate a 0.9 percent increase in the payroll tax for high earners, which would mean less money coming into the Medicare trust fund. The fund is already heading toward insolvency — partly because other taxes created by the law that had provided revenue for the fund have already been repealed — by 2024.
If the Supreme Court Ends Obamacare, Here’s What It Would Mean
The Affordable Care Act touches the lives of most Americans, and its abolition could have a significant effect on many millions more people than those who get their health coverage through it.
So now it is doctors and not low wages that are causing the 'doctor shortage'?????? You keep coming up with some other dumb answer once shown how ignorant your first replies are. So do doctors want to protect their income because it is so low and the want more patients???????
If the ACA is cancelled, Medicare Advantage Plan insurers will instantly get a $75 billion per year increase in profits at tax payer expense. Remember that Obama cut payments to those insurers by $756 billion over ten years that the right claimed would end medicare advantage completely??????? Medicare advantage insurers are pushing their plans harder than ever, and offering more benefits to entice customers, and the right wants to GIVE them $756 billion of tax payer dollars. Yes, getting rid of the ACA will be 'more efficient" for insurers, who will efficiently make more money for the same amount of effort.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Your confusion is understandable, considering the source. Are you a close relative of @bacha29 ? He can’t keep who he responds to straight either.
Doctors want to assure their income continues to increase by limiting competition for their services. There is a ‘shortage’ of doctors because they limit their patient load. See how a logical explanation works? You should try it sometime.
They just don't get it DMAC. The ACA was the first meaningful attempt to streamline the insurance industry and bring some accountability to the industry If the ACA is overturned all that's left is state level McCarron Ferguson . And red state legislatures are too weak and limp wristed to take on Big Pharma and Big Insurance.
Keep in mind too that the state where Fred's Myth lives 1 out of every 5 residents in his state have no insurance, it's among the nation's leaders in closed facilities and it's one of the few remaining states that did not join the expanded Medicare program . And furthermore he doesn't have an alternative and like most Americans his savings wouldn't last long if he actually had to pay everything out of his own pocket which he strongly advocates.
Trump keeps talking about allowing insurers to sell insurance across state lines. Five states have thrown open their insurance markets but guess how many insurers have moved in? .. Zero.
If the ACA is overturned a SPS will be the only remaining option unless this 'UUUGE" better and and cheaper alternative gets here real quick but we all know that none exists. It a SPS is the only clear pathway out of the mess an overturning of the ACA would create then rest assured the American people will stop at nothing in order to get one including voting out of office anybody who gets in the way.
Only a conservative Trumpie could believe that reducing the number of people with insurance coverage means more money for doctors!!!! Universal coverage AND spending more money means more money for doctors, not less. Claiming that doctors will lose money if we have universal coverage is obviously ignorant to all but the ignorant.
59 Dano
I just want to make friends!
Now, out of thin air, we're worried????
59 Dano
I just want to make friends!
"Would you like to make as much money as a doctor?"
"Yes."
"Are you willing to get a four year degree, prepare for and pass a test to get into medical school, go to medical school full-time for another four years and graduate, pass the licensing exams, then go into residency for as long as 7 years, take another exam, take another test to become board certified, and then get a state specific license?"
"No."
"What if we offset some of that stuff with a scholarship?"
"No."
Of course people want to earn a doctor's pay. Not many want to go through all of that, and of those who do, not all are capable. But you go right ahead pretending that we can crank out as many doctors as needed as if they were widgets coming from a factory.
59 Dano
I just want to make friends!
59 Dano
I just want to make friends!
I might agree, assuming that they got a similar return on their payment. But we would have high income earners paying tons of money into something like Social Security, and Social Security benefits are based on how much you've paid into the system. Then we have the problem of Social Security being on the hook for large benefits payments to guys who are already comfortably wealthy. I'm sure there are other examples, but no one in his right mind would advocate the nonsense you are pushing.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
My daughter just got her Pharmacist license, and is over $200,000 in debt. The pharmacy she’s worked at for the last 8 years let her go once she graduated, company policy. Over 300 resumes sent out with no job offers in the last 3 months.
That’s what happens when you crank out doctors without regard for demand.
59 Dano
I just want to make friends!
But he says we can engineer whatever result he wants, and it'll work because it's a moral and decent goal!
Kidding aside, good luck to your daughter.
Similar threads
